The HR Policy Association added its collective voice to those opposing the recent actions of the National Labor Relations Board. The HRPA, which represents more than 325 large employers, called on Congress to limit the NLRB’s activities “either through changes in the statute or in the funding of the Board.”
Some limitations have been set forth in legislation proposed in the House of Representatives by Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, called “Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act.” (I wrote about it and some other voices calling for the Obama administration to reduce its anti-business activities in Coping — or Not — with Government Regulations.)
In a letter (PDF) sent on July 27 to “key members” of Congress, Dan Yager, chief policy officer and general counsel of the HRPA, writes that the NLRB’s actions “discourage companies from opening and expanding operations in the United States, thus hurting hiring opportunities that are key to job growth and economy recovery.”
Yager lists these are “the more objectionable recent actions” of the NLRB:
• Proposed changes in the rules governing union representation elections, including a substantial shortening of the election period from the current median of 38 days to as little as 10 days. This change is being proposed even though unions already win two out of every three elections conducted by the NLRB.
• The issuance of a complaint by the NLRB General Counsel against Boeing for engaging in honest and open discussions with its union regarding the location of a new line of production.
• Consideration of a fundamental change in the rules governing the identification of units of employees within a workplace who will vote on and potentially be represented by the union.
• Expansion of the Board’s authority to certain critical aspects of non-union workplaces, such as alternative dispute resolutions, under the guise of protecting “concerted activity” by employees, even where union-related issues are not involved.